Gut Microbe Deficiency in U.S. Babies Tied to Asthma, Allergies, Autoimmune Disorders
Scientists recently published the first two years of data from My Baby Biome, a seven-year research project that represents one of the largest and most geographically diverse U.S. infant microbiome studies to date. The findings, which came out in Communications Biology in June, are concerning: more than 75 percent of the babies in the study were deficient in key gut bacteria that are associated with a healthy microbiome. Nearly all the infants displayed deficiencies in gut microbes of some kind. These deficiencies led to a significantly increased risk of those children developing allergies, asthma or eczema, according to the study.
'Three-quarters of babies are at heightened risk of atopic conditions because of the composition of their microbiome,' says Stephanie Culler, senior author of the new study. 'That, for us, was the really big alarm.' Culler is CEO of Persephone Biosciences, a biotech company in San Diego, Calif., that runs the My Baby Biome project and funded the research.
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
A healthy infant gut microbiome is critical for immune development, and an abnormal microbiome puts babies at a higher risk of being diagnosed with certain autoimmune disorders such as asthma and type 1 diabetes. But a lack of robust data on infant microbiomes in the U.S. has held back researchers. Culler and her colleagues used social media and word of mouth to recruit the families of 412 infants to take part in the study. The children came from 48 states and were representative of U.S. demographic diversity.
To identify the types of microbial species that were present, the team analyzed bacterial DNA in stool samples that were collected when the children were infants, and, for 150 of them, additional samples from when they were one-year-olds. They also measured other molecules in the samples that gave clues about microbial activity in the children's gut. Additionally, about half of the participating families gave follow-up information about health outcomes when the children were two years old.
Based on the results, only 24 percent of infants had a healthy microbiome. The rest were deficient in Bifidobacterium—a crucial group of bacteria associated with a lower risk of a host of noncommunicable diseases. A quarter of infants lacked any detectable level of Bifidobacterium at all. In Bifidobacterium-deficient children, the researchers also detected higher levels of potentially harmful microorganisms, bacteria with antimicrobial-resistance genes and molecules that pathogens use to cause disease. As two-year-olds, those children had a three times greater risk of developing allergies, asthma or eczema compared with those with a healthy microbiome.
The researchers did not find any demographic or socioeconomic trends that could explain why certain children had a deficient microbiome or went on to develop a health condition, suggesting that these outcomes could affect 'basically any baby,' Culler says. The team did find that breastfeeding was associated with a greater concentration of Bifidobacterium in children who were vaginally birthed. But the data showed that the combination of vaginal birth and breastfeeding was still not sufficient to ensure a healthy microbiome because many of these children went on to develop chronic disease, Culler says.
Researchers in other countries have reported similarly alarming findings. Last year, for example, scientists in the U.K. found Bifidobacterium species in very low abundance in the gut microbiomes of around one-third of 1,288 infants they tested. Those infants' microbiome was instead dominated by Enterococcus faecalis, a species associated with antibiotic resistance and negative health outcomes.
The recent U.S. study supports previous research that established the relationship between Bifidobacterium in infancy and health, says Willem de Vos, an emeritus professor of human microbiomics at the University of Helsinki, who was not involved in the new work. De Vos and his colleagues' 2024 study of 1,000 infants in Finland also suggests that Bifidobacterium species play key roles in intestinal microbiota development—and that the presence of these species is associated with positive health outcomes in children for at least five years. But the new U.S. study adds an important nuance: it revealed that a particular species of Bifidobacterium—Bifidobacterium breve—was associated with a decreased risk of disease in two-year-olds, whereas another related species, Bifidobacterium longum, did not seem to play a role in reducing that risk. These findings 'are highly interesting and important,' de Vos says.
Erin Davis, a postdoctoral fellow in pediatric allergy and immunology at the University of Rochester, who was also not involved in the new work, agrees that the species-related findings are striking. 'What was unexpected was how different infant Bifidobacterium species differentially impacted relative risk of adverse health outcomes,' she says.
What is driving the changes in babies' gut microbiome is unknown. But comparisons of infant microbiomes from industrialized and nonindustrialized communities, such as Old Order Mennonites, suggest that various features of modern living are likely to blame. Such factors could include the overuse of antibiotics, the oversanitization of the environment, a reduction in breastfeeding, a lack of physical contact with other babies, adult humans and animals, and more, says Matthew Olm, an assistant professor of integrative physiology at the University of Colorado Boulder, who was not involved in the new study.
'Bifidobacteriathrives on breast milk, and it's conceivable that when only 20 percent of mothers breastfed in the 1970s, it caused a population-level decrease that we're still living with today,' Olm says. 'Even though more than 80 percent of infants are breastfed today, there may just be less bifidobacteria in the environment to colonize these babies.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
17 minutes ago
- CBS News
Looking to beat the heat in the Twin Cities? Here's a list of cooling centers around the metro
An excessive heat warning is in place across the Twin Cities metro Sunday as feels-like temperatures surpass 100 degrees. WCCO has issued a NEXT Weather Alert for Sunday due to the dangerous heat, as well as the risk for severe storms. For those looking for a place to stay cool, there are options. The following places have cooling centers open across the Twin Cities for free during business hours: For a complete list of cooling centers open in Hennepin County, click here. Minneapolis also has several free pools, beaches and splash pads to help people beat the heat. To see a map of all the cooling centers and beaches in Ramsey County, click here. To stay cool, experts encourage people to limit time in direct sunlight and drink plenty of water. If you're going to be outside in the heat, doctors encourage wearing loose, light clothing and seeking shade when you can. It's recommended that anyone working or exercising in the elements drink at least one cup of water for every 20 minutes. Older adults, young kids and anyone with underlying conditions are at greater risk from extreme heat. In Minnesota, the number of heat-related hospitalizations spikes at a feels-like temperature of only 86 degrees. Cramps, rapid pulse and dizziness are early signs to watch out for when it comes to heat-related illness. Adam Del Rosso and Aki Nace contributed to this report.

Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Do We Need to Make Coca-Cola Great Again?
Your editorial states that President Trump is pressing Coca-Cola to use cane sugar instead of corn syrup and that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said that corn syrup can cause obesity and diabetes ('Trump, Coke and the Sugar Cartel,' Review & Outlook, July 24). Why is Mr. Trump concerned with Coca-Cola? How does he know that Coke is better with cane sugar, when he reportedly drinks 12 cans of Diet Coke each day? Diet Coke contains aspartame, an artificial sweetener, and Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly stated that artificial sweeteners are detrimental to one's health. Is Mr. Trump going to give up Diet Coke? Is he going to press Coca-Cola to change the sweetener in Diet Coke?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
2 Healthcare Stocks That Are Losing to the S&P 500 This Year
Key Points Novo Nordisk and Regeneron have encountered challenges recently. Both companies are significantly trailing the market this year. These healthcare leaders still could perform well in the long run. 10 stocks we like better than Novo Nordisk › Even with all the volatility and the flirting with bear-market territory, the S&P 500 index is well in the green this year, up about 8% since early January. Some stocks haven't been so lucky, though. Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: REGN), two leading drugmakers, have underperformed for most of the year, significantly lagging the broader market. These healthcare giants are facing some headwinds, but does that mean investors should steer clear of them? Let's find out. 1. Novo Nordisk Novo Nordisk has been facing several challenges that predate this year. It encountered a clinical setback for what Wall Street thought was a promising weight management candidate. Furthermore, the company's financial results, although strong when compared to its similarly sized peers, were not seen as sufficient because it's held to a higher standard. These challenges have led to a terrible performance this year. Novo Nordisk's shares are down by 18% year to date, significantly lagging the S&P 500. However, the stock might be a steal right now. The company has made several moves that should allow it to recover. Novo Nordisk's pipeline, especially in diabetes and weight management, remains one of the strongest in the industry. It recently initiated a phase 3 study for amycretin -- its next-generation GLP-1 medicine -- in both subcutaneous and oral formulations. It requested regulatory approval in the U.S. for an oral version of semaglutide, its well-known medicine marketed as Wegovy for weight loss and as Ozempic for diabetes management. Novo Nordisk has also penned several licensing deals that have expanded its pipeline in weight management. The company should launch at least one new medicine in its core therapeutic area within the next few years. Financial results should remain strong as Ozempic and Wegovy continue driving solid revenue growth. Considering the stock's sell-off over the past years, shares now look more than reasonably valued relative to Novo Nordisk's growth potential. Their forward price-to-earnings ratio of 16.9 is in line with the healthcare industry's average of 16.5 as of this writing. However, Novo Nordisk typically grows its revenue and earnings faster than its peers. That makes its stock attractive at current levels, based on its growth potential. 2. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Regeneron is facing biosimilar competition for Eylea, a medicine for wet age-related macular degeneration that was once one of its biggest growth drivers. Sales of the medicine have dropped, dragging total revenue down with them. That's the most important reason why Regeneron's shares are down by 19% since the year started. However, the stock is still attractive. The biotech might go through a period of its top line declining, but it can still recover. Here are three reasons why. First, the company's newer, higher-dose (HD) formulation of Eylea is taking market share away from its previous version. HD Eylea is performing well and will grow even faster once it earns some label expansions. Second, Regeneron has a deep pipeline that's expected to yield new brand approvals. Earlier this month, it earned the green light for Lynozyfic, a cancer medicine, in the U.S. One of its more promising candidates is a gene therapy for one type of genetic deafness, which is showing incredible potential in clinical trials. Regeneron should move beyond Eylea thanks to newer approvals. Third, the company's most important product, Dupixent, an eczema treatment, is performing exceptionally well. The medicine has earned important label expansions in recent years, including in treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a rare skin condition called bullous pemphigoid. Dupixent will maintain its upward growth trajectory for a while. Here's one more reason to invest in Regeneron: The company is committed to returning capital to shareholders. It recently initiated a dividend and has a robust share-buyback program in place. The stock might be moving in the wrong direction right now, but those willing to hold onto it for five years or more could see superior returns over the long run. Should you invest $1,000 in Novo Nordisk right now? Before you buy stock in Novo Nordisk, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Novo Nordisk wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,628!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,063,471!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,041% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool recommends Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Healthcare Stocks That Are Losing to the S&P 500 This Year was originally published by The Motley Fool Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille